Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Amarna, Before and After


Wistman

Recommended Posts

Zeroing in on the Hermopolis blocks, it's my understanding that  Horemheb razed Akhetaten to the ground, and Ramesses II later re-used some of the blocks from its temples for his building work at nearby Hermopolis.  Since the blocks were not discovered in situ, but rather had been removed from their original site and reassembled elsewhere it isn't possible to know the original configuration or placement of the blocks, as in they might have originally come from different structures.  The blocks showing Akhenaten and Nefertiti together may have come from one of the Aten temples, say, and the blocks naming Thutankhaten and Ankhesenpaten may have come from another structure, such as Smenkhkare's festival hall, or from another, newer section of the temple, inscribed during the short time when Smenkhkare was king.

If we disassembled the Luxor temple and took two sets of blocks from it, we might conflate different reigns as being the same.  It's possible, is it not, that the Hermopolis blocks showing Akhenaten/Nefertiti and Tut/Ankhesenpaten are mixed up.  Also, the Tut/Ankhesenpaten block was broken in two, according to Zahi that is, and only the block with Tut's inscription was available for scrutiny early in his career.  Zahi supposedly knew from Nineteenth century sources (he doesn't name them) what the other side of that block said and had people look for it.  Eventually it was found and united with the other side.  Zahi has it that Ankhesenamun's name is entire and is explicitly named as "the daughter of the king, of his body, his great desire of the king of Two Lands, Ankhesenpaaton."  Would you know the exact wording of Ankhesenamun's inscription here and confirm Zahi's description?  It seems vital to the issue.  And right now I don't necessarily trust Hawass, sad to say.

The Metropolitan Museum tells us that: "Current work at the site [Akhetaten] has revealed that at least the front building, known as the Long Temple, or Gem-Aten, was substantially rebuilt again fairly late in the reign for reasons that are as yet unclear. These substantial changes over the short span of eleven years suggest the temple was a construction site for most of its existence."  This indicates a possible scenario where Smenkhkare may have had a window of opportunity to add inscriptions of his own, during the short time when he alone was on the throne.  However, if Ankhesenamun is described as being the daughter of the king on the 'same' block indicating Tut is son of the king's body, the issue is closed.  But right now, there are two blocks that Zahi says were once together.  I don't have any sources detailing these blocks, nor showing images of them, nor the name of the Nineteenth century writer to whom Hawass refers.

Just playing devil's advocate here, trying to understand the maze.  I'm in no way trying to undermine your excellent points.

https://www.guardians.net/hawass/articles/tut_akhenaten.htm

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/amar/hd_amar.htm

eta: Sticking my tongue in my cheek I'm going to cynically, and probably unhelpfully, add that king Neferneferuaten herself could have had the blocks inscribed indicating Tut as son and Ankhesenpaten as daughter of the king, posthumously for both Akhenaten and Smenkhkare (I know, a no-no, but what which was happening at the time was not a no-no?), without indicating which king was the father, in order to legitimize Tut as next in line (and her own kingship, carrying on the dynastic program) without naming his real father.  If Nefertiti/Neferneferuaten acted with malice (which is only an assumption at best) she might well have thought to do this.  Okay, I'll stop, this is getting byzantine.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wistman said:

Zeroing in on the Hermopolis blocks, it's my understanding that  Horemheb razed Akhetaten to the ground, and Ramesses II later re-used some of the blocks from its temples for his building work at nearby Hermopolis.  Since the blocks were not discovered in situ, but rather had been removed from their original site and reassembled elsewhere it isn't possible to know the original configuration or placement of the blocks, as in they might have originally come from different structures.  The blocks showing Akhenaten and Nefertiti together may have come from one of the Aten temples, say, and the blocks naming Thutankhaten and Ankhesenpaten may have come from another structure, such as Smenkhkare's festival hall, or from another, newer section of the temple, inscribed during the short time when Smenkhkare was king.

If we disassembled the Luxor temple and took two sets of blocks from it, we might conflate different reigns as being the same.  It's possible, is it not, that the Hermopolis blocks showing Akhenaten/Nefertiti and Tut/Ankhesenpaten are mixed up.  Also, the Tut/Ankhesenpaten block was broken in two, according to Zahi that is, and only the block with Tut's inscription was available for scrutiny early in his career.  Zahi supposedly knew from Nineteenth century sources (he doesn't name them) what the other side of that block said and had people look for it.  Eventually it was found and united with the other side.  Zahi has it that Ankhesenamun's name is entire and is explicitly named as "the daughter of the king, of his body, his great desire of the king of Two Lands, Ankhesenpaaton."  Would you know the exact wording of Ankhesenamun's inscription here and confirm Zahi's description?  It seems vital to the issue.  And right now I don't necessarily trust Hawass, sad to say.

The Metropolitan Museum tells us that: "Current work at the site [Akhetaten] has revealed that at least the front building, known as the Long Temple, or Gem-Aten, was substantially rebuilt again fairly late in the reign for reasons that are as yet unclear. These substantial changes over the short span of eleven years suggest the temple was a construction site for most of its existence."  This indicates a possible scenario where Smenkhkare may have had a window of opportunity to add inscriptions of his own, during the short time when he alone was on the throne.  However, if Ankhesenamun is described as being the daughter of the king on the 'same' block indicating Tut is son of the king's body, the issue is closed.  But right now, there are two blocks that Zahi says were once together.  I don't have any sources detailing these blocks, nor showing images of them, nor the name of the Nineteenth century writer to whom Hawass refers.

Just playing devil's advocate here, trying to understand the maze.  I'm in no way trying to undermine your excellent points.

https://www.guardians.net/hawass/articles/tut_akhenaten.htm

https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/amar/hd_amar.htm

eta: Sticking my tongue in my cheek I'm going to cynically, and probably unhelpfully, add that king Neferneferuaten herself could have had the blocks inscribed indicating Tut as son and Ankhesenpaten as daughter of the king, posthumously for both Akhenaten and Smenkhkare (I know, a no-no, but what which was happening at the time was not a no-no?), without indicating which king was the father, in order to legitimize Tut as next in line (and her own kingship, carrying on the dynastic program) without naming his real father.  If Nefertiti/Neferneferuaten acted with malice (which is only an assumption at best) she might well have thought to do this.  Okay, I'll stop, this is getting byzantine.

I'm going to have to contradict myself about making it seem that the names of Ankhesenpaaten? and Tutankhuaten were not seperated in any way, thus making them both part of one family, ie, they had the same mother and father. The block, as you say is in two halves, as seen below.

tumblr_p2d2u2XnWt1qiu1coo1_1280.png

What stands out is that the text on the blocks is facing each other, indicated by the direction the birds heads are facing. This to me says that there could be a divide, not just in the arrangement of the texts, which are sloppy, but between Ankhesenpaaten? on the left and Tutankhuaten on the right. This does not have to be so at all, but it does remind of the scenes on Ankhenaten's immediate family and that of Tiye and Beketaten facing each other.

The text on the left  says - King's Daughter of his body, Praised by the Lord of the Two Lands [...]aten

That on the right is - King's Son of his Body, his Beloved, Tutankhuaten

It's the quail chick in the middle of the far right column that makes the name Tutankhuaten instead of Tutankhaten

The texts are subject to variations in translation, but here we get into deep water as the usual translation of an epithet of Ankhetkheperure Neferneferuaten , Effective for her Husband, and used as proof that this is Nefertiti, can apparently be translated as just plain "awake" or "resurrected", very different from the usual translation, though I'm sure it's still Nefertiti, but this shows an area of difficulty not usually addressed in non nerd works.

It's possible that the blocks could be part of a scene similar to this one

7c5c943fb81e32c2e524d109e0e7de9e.jpg

Here we have the family divided into two parts, with a blank in the texts in the center, similar to the blank on the Hermopolis talatat. This is a nice scene, but, like the Hermopolis talatat, the texts are a bit rough, particulalry the far right hand column.

Nefertiti would certainly need to do things in order to legitimize why she was king and appeared to be doing a Hatshepsut, but I'm not sure what she would do. On the other hand, Tutankhamun makes zero mention of his parents, perhaps understandable if his father is Akhenaten, but tricky as regards his mother as he needs, in a post Aten world, to be able to claim that his mother was impregnated by Amun, irrespective of who the real father is, but silence, presumably because he could never mention his heretic mother. So while he was still Son of Ra, blah blah blah, he was never legitimized as an "Amun" king because he had "no mother" as wife of Amun. it's almost like he ended up being trapped in a lie, but not of his making.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2022 at 7:35 PM, Wistman said:

Smenkhkare's festival hall, or from another, newer section of the temple, inscribed during the short time when Smenkhkare was king.

 

What would be very helpful if all the blocks, or at least some,  that made up this hall could be found inside a pylon. But nothing has been found.

This hall is a good example of how vague this all is. It is known as either the Smenkhkare coronation or festival hall due to one, just one inscription on a brick from the site. But while every time this structure is referred to the name Smenkhkare is used, even by Kemp, that name was not on the brick, it was actually, as can be expected, Ankhkheperure. Dodson in Amarna Sunset has a reproduction of the stamp on the brick, page 32, but it is a reproduction of a drawing of the brick, not a photo of the actual brick. Presumably there was no "t" on the actual brick, but it just shows how so much can be made from so little, and something that is not clear cut, at least without seeing the brick. On page 33 opposite, five ring bezels are reproduced, all with the prenomen Ankhkheperure, and all with an epithet that we associate with Nefertiti as wife of Akhenaten. Not a single one of these bezels has the "t" determinative. The question here is do the actual bezels have the "t" and it has not been seen as significant when copied and so left out, or did they have the "t". So the festival hall brick is said to be for Smenkhkare on the basis on there being no epithet, I wonder just how reliable this is.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What would be very helpful if all the blocks, or at least some,  that made up this hall could be found inside a pylon. But nothing has been found.

This hall is a good example of how vague this all is. It is known as either the Smenkhkare coronation or festival hall due to one, just one inscription on a brick from the site. But while every time this structure is referred to the name Smenkhkare is used, even by Kemp, that name was not on the brick, it was actually, as can be expected, Ankhkheperure. Dodson in Amarna Sunset has a reproduction of the stamp on the brick, page 32, but it is a reproduction of a drawing of the brick, not a photo of the actual brick. Presumably there was no "t" on the actual brick, but it just shows how so much can be made from so little, and something that is not clear cut, at least without seeing the brick. On page 33 opposite, five ring bezels are reproduced, all with the prenomen Ankhkheperure, and all with an epithet that we associate with Nefertiti as wife of Akhenaten. Not a single one of these bezels has the "t" determinative. The question here is do the actual bezels have the "t" and it has not been seen as significant when copied and so left out, or did they have the "t". So the festival hall brick is said to be for Smenkhkare on the basis on there being no epithet, I wonder just how reliable this is.

Yeah, agreed.  I was of course using it as a hypothetical example, but you're right, the 'Smenkhkare festival hall' could really be a Neferneferuaten structure.  Or, as she ruled for about three years, she could have usurped any structure that Smenkhkare built, if he built any.  There's just too many missing pieces to know for sure who built it; I guess it should be referred to in some neutral way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tiye's brother Aanen get's overlooked, he's usually just a footnote. The "Akhmins" are usually referenced in regard to their relationship to the god Min, and not connected to the growing importance during the 18th Dynasty of not just the solar religion in a way that perhaps the Old Kingdom kings would approve, but also the increasing prominence of Aten. The most important of the solar priests is the Greatest of Seers at Heliopolis, step forward Aanen, brother in law to the king who would declare himself to be the "Dazzling Aten".

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something I've read that I'm still trying to get my head around. It concerns the Contendings of Seth and Horus and the succession rights of members of the royal family to be king. There has always been this issue with the terms brother and son in regards to who exactly these terms could apply to. To us it's straight forward, but in relation to AE royal families it's not straight forward at all.

As far as I know, no living king ever has a brother, the reason put forward being that it implies an equality between the two, when the king is supreme. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that when a king dies, even if he is known to have numerous sons, for instance at least four and probably six for Thutmose IV, when his oldest son becomes Amunhotep III, he suddenly has nobody named as his brother, they all vanish from history. What I've become aware of is that they may, some or all I don't know, become "son's" of their brother, and still have a claim to the throne, even, it seems, over any of their nephews as sons of the king.

I want to leave this open as to what implications there could be for Amarna, mostly because, as I said, I'm still getting my head around this. I'll make one quote from the source, New Kingdom royal succession strategies by Martin Pehal, as a chapter in The rise and development of the solar cult and architecture in Ancient Egypt. edited by Massimiliano Nuzzolo and Jaromir Krejci, 2020.

Quote

Hypothetically, within an imagined historical succession feud, a deceased pharaoh's brother could claim legitimacy not only culturaly, as the deceased pharaoh's oldest "son", but also bio-gentically by shifting the argument one generation higher to the mother he shares with his contender's mother, i.e. his own sister.

So, that's all clear then, isn't it :)

I'll have to come back to this.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reminded that the year 16 graffito at Dayr Abu Hinnis indicates that blocks being quarried were intended for the Small Aten Temple at Akhetaten, meaning that some sort of structural work was still being done on this building in yr. 16.  As with the Great Aten Temple. 

This same graffito shows that, in year 16, Akhenaten and Nefertiti were still both alive and, importantly, still held the discrete title stylings of king and GRW, as they had done throughout the Amarna episode.  IOW, she was not yet co-regent at that late date.  It is assumed from a wine jar docket that Akhenaten died in year 17, but it is only assumed, due to the high regnal date, that it refers to him, though he is not explicitly named.  Other than this, the Dayr Abu Hinnis graffito is the last extant evidence showing him still alive.

Quote

Regnal year 16, first month of the inundation season, day 15. May the King of Upper and Lower Egypt live, he who lives of Maat, the Lord of the Two Lands Neferkheperure Waenre, l.p.h.., the Son of Re, who lives of Maat, the Lord of the Crowns Akhenaten, l.p.h., whose life span is long, living forever and ever, the King’s Great Wife, his beloved, the lady of the two lands Neferneferuaten-Nefertiti, living forever and ever. Beloved of Re, the ruler of the two horizons, who rejoices in the horizon in his name of Re ///, who comes as the Aten.  the /// the work of the Mansion of the Aten, under the authority of the king’s scribe Penthu, under the authority of overseer of work ///.

Some notations on this (lifted from a longer list of such) per Van der Perre:

Quote

The style of Nefertiti shows that she did not change her title of ḥm.t nsw.t wr.t  to ḥm.t nsw.t ꜤꜢ.t  after the 12th year of Akhenaten, as is often suggested.  Although the occurrence of the ḥm.t-nsw.t ꜤꜢ.t -title is rather rare, it appears five times in the tomb of Meryre II at Amarna.  However, in the tomb both titles are used simultaneously, so a definitive change from one title to another was not the case. As the new inscription proves, the original title ḥm.t nsw.t wr.t  was still used towards the end of the reign of Akhenaten.

The first part of the queen’s name is well preserved, all signs being clearly written. The second part causes more problems. After the fifth nfr-sign, the phonetic complements f and r are clearly visible. They are followed by two low, narrow signs, of which the remains suggest the reading of a t and the two strokes of y. The next sign can be restored as Möller II, 284; ἰἰ, followed by the remains of a t and the two legs (Möller II, 120). The last two signs are two tall narrow signs, of which the first is possibly a tἰ (Möller II, 401) and the last again the . So far, parallels of this writing of the queen’s name have not been found.

As to the distinctions between Nefertiti's kingly name and Smenkhkare's, Dodson (in Amarna Sunset) suggests that prenomens Ankkhetperure and Ankhkheperure combined with epithet belong to Akhenaten's successor Neferneferuaten, while Ankhkeperure without epithet belong to Smenkhkare.  And this, the use of epithets, suggests (Van der Perre) that Neferneferuaten reigned after Smenkhkare, since epithets were necessary to make a distinction between them.  And so:

Quote

The pillared hall at the southern end of the Great Palace, also known as the Coronation Hall, contained bricks stamped with the cartouche of  Ankhkheperure and a reference to the “House of Rejoicing of the Aten.” The few known examples all come from the first two or four central columns at the northern end of the Hall. Since no stamped bricks were found in any other part, this was probably a later addition to the Palace. The impressions are destroyed at the bottom, but it is doubtful whether there was room for more than one (low) sign (Fig. 7). It is possible that the missing sign is pr, referring to “the House of Ankhkheperure (in) the House of Rejoicing of the Aten.” There is definitely insufficient space left for one of the epithets of Nefernerferuaten, so that the “House of Ankhkheperure” probably belonged to Semenkhkare. Nothing further is known of the function of this building.

27-d5234c8d35.jpgFig. 7

https://www.academia.edu/6682743/VAN_DER_PERRE_A_The_Year_16_Graffito_of_Akhenaten_in_Dayr_Abu_Hinnis_JEgH_07_01_2014_67_108

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There's something I've read that I'm still trying to get my head around. It concerns the Contendings of Seth and Horus and the succession rights of members of the royal family to be king. There has always been this issue with the terms brother and son in regards to who exactly these terms could apply to. To us it's straight forward, but in relation to AE royal families it's not straight forward at all.

As far as I know, no living king ever has a brother, the reason put forward being that it implies an equality between the two, when the king is supreme. I've mentioned a few times in this thread that when a king dies, even if he is known to have numerous sons, for instance at least four and probably six for Thutmose IV, when his oldest son becomes Amunhotep III, he suddenly has nobody named as his brother, they all vanish from history. What I've become aware of is that they may, some or all I don't know, become "son's" of their brother, and still have a claim to the throne, even, it seems, over any of their nephews as sons of the king.

I want to leave this open as to what implications there could be for Amarna, mostly because, as I said, I'm still getting my head around this. I'll make one quote from the source, New Kingdom royal succession strategies by Martin Pehal, as a chapter in The rise and development of the solar cult and architecture in Ancient Egypt. edited by Massimiliano Nuzzolo and Jaromir Krejci, 2020.

So, that's all clear then, isn't it :)

I'll have to come back to this.

This is most intriguing, and logical in a way, considering the vagaries of dynastic succession, but then maybe it complicates things by sidelining actual eldest sons from ascending the throne because an uncle now sits there.  I guess some 'rules' must have dictated a certain circumstance in order for sons of the king's body to be denied the kingship in favor of a brother (as son....sheesh); but it makes a perfect solution for when there was no crown prince at all.  I'm just not sure how it would work, but of course it would give credence to Smenkhkare being AIII and Tiye's young son; it would certainly solve the problem of a Pharaoh Akhenaten with daughters but no crown prince to rule.  I can imagine Ay (who would have well-known such a royal son) being in favor of this arrangement, since Smenkhkare had the requisite mix of Akhmim and Thutmosid blood, so all was good for Akhmim power.  But maybe he didn't like the new Crown Prince; maybe Smenkhkare would have sidelined both Ay and Nefertiti's power.  Who knows, since Smenkhkare died so untimely.  

A problem still sits, however, in this scenario: although Smenkhkare was married to Meritaten, 'his' son Tut was conceived by way of his own young sister, YL (Nebetah perhaps?), making a Shu and Tefnut bond which superceded that with his GRW, if the cosmic bond still mattered...which I am guessing that it did.  Then...Nefertiti would have no blood of her own in the succession, and her status would have diminished...unless Meritaten conceived a son.   Oy, my head is spinning.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wistman said:

I'm reminded that the year 16 graffito at Dayr Abu Hinnis indicates that blocks being quarried were intended for the Small Aten Temple at Akhetaten, meaning that some sort of structural work was still being done on this building in yr. 16.  As with the Great Aten Temple. 

This same graffito shows that, in year 16, Akhenaten and Nefertiti were still both alive and, importantly, still held the discrete title stylings of king and GRW, as they had done throughout the Amarna episode.  IOW, she was not yet co-regent at that late date.  It is assumed from a wine jar docket that Akhenaten died in year 17, but it is only assumed, due to the high regnal date, that it refers to him, though he is not explicitly named.  Other than this, the Dayr Abu Hinnis graffito is the last extant evidence showing him still alive.

Some notations on this (lifted from a longer list of such) per Van der Perre:

As to the distinctions between Nefertiti's kingly name and Smenkhkare's, Dodson (in Amarna Sunset) suggests that prenomens Ankkhetperure and Ankhkheperure combined with epithet belong to Akhenaten's successor Neferneferuaten, while Ankhkeperure without epithet belong to Smenkhkare.  And this, the use of epithets, suggests (Van der Perre) that Neferneferuaten reigned after Smenkhkare, since epithets were necessary to make a distinction between them.  And so:

https://www.academia.edu/6682743/VAN_DER_PERRE_A_The_Year_16_Graffito_of_Akhenaten_in_Dayr_Abu_Hinnis_JEgH_07_01_2014_67_108

Yes, I'll agree with all of that. The purpose of my post was mostly to show now little evidence there is, and now vague it can be, particularly when the primary evidence is not presented in the more popular books, only secondary evidence, and I would class a reproduction of a drawing of an inscription as secondary. It's most notable with the name "Smenkhkare" in the tomb of Meryre II, were the cartouche and image has long gone, and what we are shown as the cartouche is a copy of a copy that Lepsius may or may not have copied correctly in the first place. He probably did, but we can now never know for sure.

It's interesting that work was still being done on the Small Aten Temple, but not surprising as despite it being "small" and not "great", it was probably the more important of the two temples. Belmonte hints that this may be so as it is the Small Temple that is aligned with the notch on the horizon at the entrance to the royal wadi necropolis. It would also, I suppose, be more imprtant as being aligned with the horizon notch, it would be more fully under the path of the total eclipse in Akhenaten's year 4. I know it's sort of quibbling when the Great Temple next door will also be under the totality, but it's not aligned with the horizon notch. A question I have, which cannot be answered, is did Akhenaten know an eclipse would occur at that time, and that the totality would be smack bang over the future site of Akhetaten. I would think that he did know, and was encamped at the site to watch the event, but that's just a guess.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wistman said:

This is most intriguing, and logical in a way, considering the vagaries of dynastic succession, but then maybe it complicates things by sidelining actual eldest sons from ascending the throne because an uncle now sits there.  I guess some 'rules' must have dictated a certain circumstance in order for sons of the king's body to be denied the kingship in favor of a brother (as son....sheesh); but it makes a perfect solution for when there was no crown prince at all.  I'm just not sure how it would work, but of course it would give credence to Smenkhkare being AIII and Tiye's young son; it would certainly solve the problem of a Pharaoh Akhenaten with daughters but no crown prince to rule.  I can imagine Ay (who would have well-known such a royal son) being in favor of this arrangement, since Smenkhkare had the requisite mix of Akhmim and Thutmosid blood, so all was good for Akhmim power.  But maybe he didn't like the new Crown Prince; maybe Smenkhkare would have sidelined both Ay and Nefertiti's power.  Who knows, since Smenkhkare died so untimely.  

A problem still sits, however, in this scenario: although Smenkhkare was married to Meritaten, 'his' son Tut was conceived by way of his own young sister, YL (Nebetah perhaps?), making a Shu and Tefnut bond which superceded that with his GRW, if the cosmic bond still mattered...which I am guessing that it did.  Then...Nefertiti would have no blood of her own in the succession, and her status would have diminished...unless Meritaten conceived a son.   Oy, my head is spinning.

It does indeed show a case for the brother of a king to "legally" take precedence in the succession over a "son of the king's body", something that I had long though was just not possible except by foul play. The fly in the ointment here though is that this is predicated on the death of a king, not a co-regency, though I'm sure there was some flexibility here, and this also presumes that Tutankhaten is the son of Akhenaten.

It does all make more sense of course if Smenkhkare is a brother of Akhenaten, and Tutankhaten is the son of Smenkhkare. We know princes were almost invisible in the 18th Dynasty, but an added factor in the only one known mention of Tutankhaten before becoming king, is that if a son of Smenkhkare, he would have to have been born before Smenkhkare became king, not least because otherwise we would need to find evidence of Smenkhkare being king in year 9 or 10, and good luck with that. So if he were a son of Smenkhkare, he would have been, in 18th Dynasty public view, a nobody until his father became a king. There's a computation about when the YL would have died to be made as well, for if, for the sake of argument, she were no older than 25, to have died at that age and be the mother of a son who died at around 19, she would have died aorund ten years earlier, give or take a few years, and I'm having her give birth to him at around 15 herself. This would put her death around the time Tutankhamun appears as a king. I know this also coincides with the presumed death of Nefertiti, and therefore mitigates for the YL to be her, but not at 25 at the most. Just more brain twisting stuff.

There is also this thing about the "ka" element in a prenomen. At face value it is making a statement about the ka of Ra, but it can be part of a legitimization process for a new king as the "ka" element refers to the old king who has now joined with Ra. This would make Smenkhkare a direct successor to Akhenaten, who does not need to be dead as he became a ka of Ra while still alive, this is all bound up in him becoming a god before death. A glaring issue here is that Smenkhkare is his nomen, but I would speculate that as this does appear to be a prenomen co-opted into to being a nomen, it may bind Smenkhkare to Akhenaten by having a piece of his ka, but not in his prenomen which, if it had the ka element, may be seen as bad, as tempting fate by seeming to state that the old king is dead and the new one is now the sole king. I have absolutely no idea if this could work, or even if it makes any sense at all, and yes, it is headache inducing.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need to correct where I said that the "ka-ra" element of Smenkhkare, as a prenomen, would make him successor to Akhenaten. It does, but it also makes him a potential successor to Amunhotep III, if he was in fact a son of his, and technically, while a co-ruler with Akhenaten, he is also a successor to AIII. This still leaves the issue of why his nomen is, probably, a prenomen, unless his real birth name was an "Amun" name, and needed to be changed. He may, without evidence, have been named Amenemhet, as was a brother of Amunhotep III, or Amenmesse, or indeed that of any name without a "ra" element.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating.  I suppose he came to Akhetaten with the rest of the royal family after AIII died, around Akhenaten's year 9?  At least Tiye and Baketaten arrived then, so it's not too much of a stretch to posit that the remaining royal others came then too.  The remnant court at Malkata departed and the Aten City shuttered.  I think Sitamun came then to Amarna, maybe with her son.  And the other princesses and princes, it's likely some of them would follow the court to the new city of the now sole Pharaoh; one of them may be KV35YL.  One, maybe, say, KV55.  Names would be altered to fit the shining new paradigm.  Akhenaten might even have summoned them to come live with him, to share in the mystical privilege and grandeur.  Nefertiti, covertly supreme, might have expected a challenge to her station.

@Year 9 also signals Aten's name change to its later form.  And Queen Kiya appears, greatly favored by Akhenaten, with unique queenly stylings, but shady antecedents (possibly she's around Amarna earlier; her coffin seems to be dated by some to pre-Year 9).

Tiye wields power at court and it's recognized by the king of Mitanni in his correspondence.  And Kiya is favored as greatly beloved wife, she has a daughter by the king, according to one of the Hermopolis talatats which name her.  So the years 10 - 12 would go, Nefertiti's power diminished seemingly.

Year 12, the year of the international celebration, the Durbar commemoration, the appearance of Smenkhkare married to Meritaten.  Tiye dies.  Royal daughters die.  There seems to be an outbreak of plague. 

At some point Kiya disappears and her inscriptions defaced; some of her funerary items end up in KV55.  The international situation deteriorates and becomes dire; the kingdom begins to lose hold of its possessions and client alliances, and tribute.

@Year 14, Tut is born.

@Year 15 must be the advent and eclipse of Smenkhkare's co-regency because by Year 16 we have the grafitto at Dayr Abu Hinnis showing Akhenaten and Nefertiti as his GRW, not yet co-regent, but seemingly a kingly couple alone in royal authority, although I suppose it's possible Smenkhkare was still alive and co-regent at the time of the graffito, but his high co-ruler status was not indicated.  Still it leaves only a tiny window for her co-regency.

Year 17 we have the wine docket, and Akhenaten's finale.

Going by Wepwawet's understanding of princely honorifics and succession precedence, we can conceive of Smenkhkare as possibly being a royal prince and brother of Akhenaten.  He was either father to Tuthankhuaten or overrode the infant crown prince's claim to the throne.

Have I got this timeline right?  What important things have I missed?

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wistman said:

Have I got this timeline right?  What important things have I missed?

Given the amount of information we are lacking, and probably always will, that's quite a reasonable synopsis.

There's only two things I'd like to comment on, the first being that I think Tutankhaten would have been born around year 8-ish, give or take a bit, and not 14. I've given the reasons before, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate them. An age of death at 19 and a ten year reign make him 9 on becoming king, this everybody agrees with, and his actual age on becoming king could vary by months either side of 9, so late 8 or early 10. If his regnal years start on the death of Akhenaten, which they should do, then if he was about 9 when Akhenaten died, a countback brings us to a birth in year 8. If his regnal years run consecutive to Ankhetkheperure, this brings his birth forward by, for the sake of argument, two years to year 10. I'm assuming that as Ankhetkheperure has a recorded three regnal years, the first was concurrent, at least for some months, with Akhenaten's year 17, giving her at least one full regnal year as sole ruler and an unknown amount of time into her third year. The year 14 estimate for his birth comes from an assumption that he is one of the babies shown in the death scenes of the princesses in TA26. Not going into the argument about this contention, I would point out though that if he were born in year 14, he would only have been aged three at the death of Akhenaten, and, if he counted his regnal years from the death of Akhenaten, which he should have done, he would have been only about thirteen at death, and his remains discount this. Even if he counted his years consecutive to Neferneferuaten, it still only makes him about sixteen at death. This age is in fact not outside being possible, and Reeves in his "The Compete Tutankhamun" says that he may have been as young as sixteen, even though he gives his birth year as around year 11. It's the issue of if his reign was concurrent or consecutive with Neferneferuaten that accounts for the wiggle room. Reeves, btw, is bringing out a completely revised update to his 1992 book, probably to push his KV62 extention hypothesis.

The second matter is that of the co-regency between Amunhotep III and Akhenaten. I'll admit to flip flopping around on this over the years, but taking a long cold hard stare at everything we know, which is actually nothing that prooves a co-regency, I'll just make a quote from Arielle Kozloff's Amenhotep III - Egypt's Radiant Pharaoh published in 2012, and I'll keep her spelling of their names.

Quote

One of the thorniest issues relating to Amenhotep III is the possibility of a coregency between him and his son Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten lasting anywhere from a few months to 12 years. The point of view of this book is that current evidence does not clearly support a coregency. The Amarna letters written to Akhenaten suggest that he was his father's successor, and they indicate that he needed tutelage in international affairs from the dowager queen Tiy. Obviously he knew nothing about this arena first hand as a coregent. Donald Redford's 1967 examination of the coregency was so thorough and logical that it should have put the question to rest. It continues, however, because the obscure details of the controversy are fascinating and the passionate arguments too much fun to resist. The decades-long academic debate has been full of provocative personalities, factions, and politics, and it deserves it's own separate study.

I know that's sounding like an argument from authority, but it's not meant to be, and of course there are many who will noisily disagree with Kozloff and present their own argments. For myself, I hope that this will be the last time I have a change of opinion on the co-regency question, and it would take positive proof for that. I'll just point out one aspect that mitigates against a co-regency. From the get-go Akhenaten starts building at Karnak, the Gem-pa-aten and the Hwt-bnbn. The Gem-pa-aten, and a female equivalent, the Gem-et-pa-aten, were large structures, and, so far, tens of thousands of talat from these temples have been found in pylons at Karnak. Not a single one shows any evidence of Akhenaten, still Amunhotep IV, ruling with anybody else except Nefertiti, prominent on talatat from the Hwt-bnbn. The structures built by Amunhotep III do not show a co-ruler, and show no sign of building work continuing during the reign of Akhenaten. If a co-regency lasted for 8 years, the figure usually put forward, is it not odd that there is not a single piece of evidence from these temples at Karnak to show a co-regency. Amunhotep III cannot have objected to such temples as he called himself the "Dazzling Aten", he had a "palace" at Karnak with the same name, Malkata was in fact the "Dazzling Aten" as was his royal barge, yet he is not associated with any Aten structures, or any structures at all except private tombs, after Akhenaten appears, it's almost as if he were, um, dead.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at various dates because of this co-regency thing, I realized that I've accepted a wrong date from Belmonte regarding the total eclipse taking place in Akhenaten's year 4, and possibly having an impact on him. Belmonte gives the date for the eclipse as May 14th 1338 BC, (It is also said in some sources to be May 14th 1337, but did happen according to NASA data) and right under this he gives the dates for the reign of Akhenaten as 1341 - 1325 BC, 16 years. Why those dates did not show a red flag I don't know as Akhenaten became king in 1351 (there's a two year + or - with the dates btw) therefore putting this eclipse in his year 10, or 12. However, going back to the co-regency thing, the dates for AIII and Akhenaten do not make any allowance for any co-regency and the reign changed in either 1353 or 1351. However, taking the date of the change of reign to be 1351, voila, a total eclipse over Soleb on 15th August of that year, a place of significance for Amunhotep III where he became Khonsu, who, as the Moon, eclipses the Sun, himself arguably in the presumed year of his death, and twenty years later his grandson Tutankhamun takes on a lunar prenomen, without a cartouche though, after "defeating" the Sun in it's Aten form.  Oh how easy it is to come up with stuff and make all sorts of assumptions and wild guesses :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Given the amount of information we are lacking, and probably always will, that's quite a reasonable synopsis.

There's only two things I'd like to comment on, the first being that I think Tutankhaten would have been born around year 8-ish, give or take a bit, and not 14. I've given the reasons before, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate them. An age of death at 19 and a ten year reign make him 9 on becoming king, this everybody agrees with, and his actual age on becoming king could vary by months either side of 9, so late 8 or early 10. If his regnal years start on the death of Akhenaten, which they should do, then if he was about 9 when Akhenaten died, a countback brings us to a birth in year 8. If his regnal years run consecutive to Ankhetkheperure, this brings his birth forward by, for the sake of argument, two years to year 10. I'm assuming that as Ankhetkheperure has a recorded three regnal years, the first was concurrent, at least for some months, with Akhenaten's year 17, giving her at least one full regnal year as sole ruler and an unknown amount of time into her third year. The year 14 estimate for his birth comes from an assumption that he is one of the babies shown in the death scenes of the princesses in TA26. Not going into the argument about this contention, I would point out though that if he were born in year 14, he would only have been aged three at the death of Akhenaten, and, if he counted his regnal years from the death of Akhenaten, which he should have done, he would have been only about thirteen at death, and his remains discount this. Even if he counted his years consecutive to Neferneferuaten, it still only makes him about sixteen at death. This age is in fact not outside being possible, and Reeves in his "The Compete Tutankhamun" says that he may have been as young as sixteen, even though he gives his birth year as around year 11. It's the issue of if his reign was concurrent or consecutive with Neferneferuaten that accounts for the wiggle room. Reeves, btw, is bringing out a completely revised update to his 1992 book, probably to push his KV62 extention hypothesis.

The second matter is that of the co-regency between Amunhotep III and Akhenaten. I'll admit to flip flopping around on this over the years, but taking a long cold hard stare at everything we know, which is actually nothing that prooves a co-regency, I'll just make a quote from Arielle Kozloff's Amenhotep III - Egypt's Radiant Pharaoh published in 2012, and I'll keep her spelling of their names.

I know that's sounding like an argument from authority, but it's not meant to be, and of course there are many who will noisily disagree with Kozloff and present their own argments. For myself, I hope that this will be the last time I have a change of opinion on the co-regency question, and it would take positive proof for that. I'll just point out one aspect that mitigates against a co-regency. From the get-go Akhenaten starts building at Karnak, the Gem-pa-aten and the Hwt-bnbn. The Gem-pa-aten, and a female equivalent, the Gem-et-pa-aten, were large structures, and, so far, tens of thousands of talat from these temples have been found in pylons at Karnak. Not a single one shows any evidence of Akhenaten, still Amunhotep IV, ruling with anybody else except Nefertiti, prominent on talatat from the Hwt-bnbn. The structures built by Amunhotep III do not show a co-ruler, and show no sign of building work continuing during the reign of Akhenaten. If a co-regency lasted for 8 years, the figure usually put forward, is it not odd that there is not a single piece of evidence from these temples at Karnak to show a co-regency. Amunhotep III cannot have objected to such temples as he called himself the "Dazzling Aten", he had a "palace" at Karnak with the same name, Malkata was in fact the "Dazzling Aten" as was his royal barge, yet he is not associated with any Aten structures, or any structures at all except private tombs, after Akhenaten appears, it's almost as if he were, um, dead.

Yes, thanks for the correction re Tut's birth.  Year 9 actually works much better wrt notions about his parentage and I'll gladly relinquish the old chestnut of year 14.  I do sometimes forget details mentioned previously, so I hope you don't mind having to reiterate them from time to time. My poor leaky memory. :su

As to the AIII/AIV co-regency, I was wondering when writing my last entry if the Dayr Abu Hinnis grafitto could or should be interpreted as if absence of evidence is evidence of absence; that is, if there's no depiction of a co-ruler, does that mean there was none, ie: was Smenkhkare already dead when Akhenaten and Nefertiti were depicted there seemingly as sole rulers.   In like manner, does the lack of public inscriptions and depictions of AIII and Akhenaten as co-rulers mean that there was no co-regency?  If my (leaky) memory serves, previous co-regencies occurred in Middle Kingdom and in 18th D.  Programmatically, how were these depicted?  Was there in fact any codified way of presenting a co-regency?  I honestly don't know.  Not that such niceties would necessarily have deterred AIV/Akhenaten from his own programme in adorning the vast Gem-pa-Aten and its adjoining palace he built at Karnak.  Or from showing only his wife and himself since those places were their creations.

That being said, we do have the 2010 season Spanish discovery of the tomb of Vizier Amenhotep Huy at Asasif, with the AIII year 30 depictions of AIII and AIV together as rulers.  Mohammed Ibrahim reported it in 2014 (Kozloff's book was published in 2012, so this evidence was not available at the time) that the walls “carry scenes showing both Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (father and son) in the same space, and one following the other. The remains also show hieroglyphic inscriptions of the names of both kings beside each other.”  Raised relief shows the cartouches of AIII and AIV both, together.  The Spanish team's report of their 2010/2011 season also described the tomb chapel as bearing three rows of pillars, with Amenhotep IV’s cartouches occuring on two pillars and his father’s on two others.  As far as I know only a couple photos from the report were publicly released:

MSA_Asasif_Feb2014-3-am-iv.thumb.jpg.938e7c69dd9f99ccec2265d916960477.jpgMSA_Asasif_Feb201-am-iii.thumb.jpg.9c3f272678077a6eb5eeb69c837372c6.jpg

Also, a graffito from a pyramid temple at Meidum, though not dispositive, states:

Quote

Year 30 under the majesty of the dual king Nebmaatre, the son of Amun, satisfied with Truth, Amenhotep ruler of Thebes, lord of might, ruler of happiness, who loves him who hates falsehood, causing the male to sit down upon the seat of his father, establishing his inheritance in the land.  [Brown University, A Coregency Between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten]

As you know, AIII's name is found at Amarna as 'Castle of Nebmaatre', 'House of Nebmaatre', and 'House of Nebmaatre in the Barque'.  These, too, aren't dispositive in themselves, but could give weight to the notion of co-regency.

And still, the arrival of Tiye and Beketaten in year 8 (this makes more sense than year 9) suggests a confirmation that AIII is now gone, not eight years previously.  Is her appearance at Akhetaten attested by Akhenaten's regnal year or is it supposition?

I think a bit more information from Aten City re the date of the abondonment thereof, would be helpful.  The dating of Aten City goods that we've seen thus far and seem to be relative to the year 30 Hb-Sd festival cannot be ultimate, I think, because AIII reigned for seven more years after this date, at Malkata.

I guess I'm not ready to forsake the AIII/AIV co-regency yet.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wistman said:

I guess I'm not ready to forsake the AIII/AIV co-regency yet.

And you would be right as nothing is settled here. For my part, all the reasons you give for a co-regency are the ones that persuaded me a little while back that there probably was one, except the cartouches in the tomb of Huy were I have always accepted Dodson's reasoning that they are not evidence for a co-regency.

I admit that everything else has merits, but nothing is really clear cut, despite arguments that the evidence is "set in stone and do not argue" and does not negate, for me,  the fact that in a presumed eight year co-regency not a single piece of evidence has been found from any structure at Karnak, either belonging to AIII or Akhenaten. However, I'm not closing the door to a co-regency, and a short one is a possibility, but not I think eight years, or even close.

I think the reign, clearly as a co-ruler, of Smenkhkare was too short and vague for it to be expected that we would find evidence on temple walls, not least because we have no temple walls remaining from Akhetaten. For all we know his and Akhenaten's image were plastered all over the walls of the "coronation hall", but, zip.

So far not a great deal has been presented yet from the new finds at Malkata. There is AIII alone until his year 38, then Tutankhamun years later. Stamped on a piece of clay were found the words "The Aten is found living on truth", and this is said to be proof of Akhenaten as it is one of his epithets. Firstly, as Akhenaten was a son of AIII he would have been living at Malkata anyway, though as Amunhotep, secondly, this is not, as far as I know, an epithet of Akhenaten, whose only known epithet was "wanenre" = Unique one of Ra, and it is also not one of his other names, Golden Horus for instance. The "Maat" element in this supposed epithet points more to AIII with his prenomen Nebmaatre, though this is not one of his epithets either, as far as I know. A problem with epithets is that we get presented with the main ones in published works, but there can be many more than remain hidden away in obscure papers. The gods and godesses are presented usually with just the name we all know them as, but they have many names, some very obscure, so there may well be names for kings that are not well known beyond the specialist.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry to think  Akhenaten was Moses 

Freud proposed that Moses had been a priest of Akhenaten who fled Egypt after the pharaoh's death and perpetuated monotheism through a different religion, and that he was murdered by his followers, who then via reaction formation revered him and became irrevocably committed to the monotheistic idea he represented.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism#:~:text=Freud proposed that Moses had,the monotheistic idea he represented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

sorry to think  Akhenaten was Moses 

Freud proposed that Moses had been a priest of Akhenaten who fled Egypt after the pharaoh's death and perpetuated monotheism through a different religion, and that he was murdered by his followers, who then via reaction formation revered him and became irrevocably committed to the monotheistic idea he represented.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism#:~:text=Freud proposed that Moses had,the monotheistic idea he represented.

The Hebrews may have borrowed two fundamental concepts from Egypt, that of creatio ex nihilo, from Ptah, which looks a lot like monotheism, and monotheism possibly from Akhenaten and transmitted via the Hymn to the Aten eventually forming the basis of psalm 104, contentious of course. The issue is that 800 years separate Akhenaten from the first writings of the Hebrews, though as that part of the Levant was within the Egyptian Empire for a long time, and Akhenaten's ideas would have permeated through the empire, some fundamental concepts may have lingered even if he and his family were subjected to a very far reaching damnatio memoriae. On the other hand, knowledge of Ptah creating ex nihilo was never surpressed and would have been familiar to the first Hebrews, though their god is more related to Seth than any other Egyptian god, and it's, in my opinion, only Egyptian concepts that have been borrowed, not gods or people, and that the probably literary composite figure of Moses has nothing to do with Akhenaten at all, likewise Yuya with Joseph and other fantasmagorical musings from Freud, Osman and many others.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 2:39 PM, Wepwawet said:

And you would be right as nothing is settled here. For my part, all the reasons you give for a co-regency are the ones that persuaded me a little while back that there probably was one, except the cartouches in the tomb of Huy were I have always accepted Dodson's reasoning that they are not evidence for a co-regency.

I admit that everything else has merits, but nothing is really clear cut, despite arguments that the evidence is "set in stone and do not argue" and does not negate, for me,  the fact that in a presumed eight year co-regency not a single piece of evidence has been found from any structure at Karnak, either belonging to AIII or Akhenaten. However, I'm not closing the door to a co-regency, and a short one is a possibility, but not I think eight years, or even close.

 

Could you kindly iterate the reasons you have for a shorter co-regency than eight years? 

As to the Dodson reference, yes he indicates that evidences of a AIII/AIV co-regency as we have them aren't ironclad (what is in this era), I think his doubts and alternates wrt the Huy tomb are a bit specious, with all due respect.  With the destruction of public and religious architecture and inscriptions from the period, tomb references are a necessary source we can acknowledge as prima facie, knowing the limits of information they can confer, temporal and self-laudatory, on the questions surrounding such things as the advent and eclipse of kingship.  It is curious that here we have the two kings' cartouches shown immediately together (and the co-regency theory had been around for decades before this, with some justifications as noted earlier) in the tomb of a courtier from AIII's reign, which is exactly that which was sought, and Dodson offers his reasons to deny it thus:

Quote

The article also implies that Amenhotep III’s use of an epithet acquired at the time of the First Jubilee has the result that the carving took place around this time, and also that the fact that the latest known attestation of Vizier Amenhotep-Huy dates to Year 35 would suggest that he left office soon after this time. However, neither necessarily follows: given the transformation undergone by Amenhotep III at his First Jubilee, it is likely that the resulting epithets may have been maintained for the rest of his life. As for Amenhotep-Huy’s career, the vagaries of preservation mean that his time as vizier could have continued for a significant period beyond Year 35; there is thus no reason to necessarily place the carving of the columns significantly prior to Amenhotep III’s death. 

In this case, it is perfectly valid to take an alternate view that work on the tomb was still underway at Amenhotep III’s death and that, while the focus on the vizier’s old master was maintained, the advent of the new king was commemorated by incorporating his names into the decoration of columns whose crafting was being undertaken at the time of his predecessor’s death.

To sum up, it is important first to recognize the rarity of unequivocal co-regencies in the record. Against this background it is important to only invoke them where there is truly decisive evidence available, or where no credible alternative may be posited: there is no evidence that (apart from during the Twelfth Dynasty) they were “routine.”  In the particular case of Amenhoteps III and IV, it cannot be denied that there are a considerable number of pieces of evidence that can be interpreted in a manner consistent with a long co-regency between the two kings. The crucial point is that in no case is there not also a credible coregency-free alternate option. It is also worth pointing out that invoking a co-regency raises all kinds of further issues about the way the state would have functioned with not only two separate kings but also two sets of officials —a situation only definitively seen in Egypt during the Theban civilwars of the Third Intermediate Period!

Since the only fully attested New Kingdom co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III produced numerous images of the two kings acting together, the lack of any such images of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, further suggests to the present writer that, attractive as the co-regency might appear (writing as one who once enthusiastically embraced it!), it did not in fact occur.

His assumptions in the first two paragraphs may be true or not, but he doesn't present any information to support them either, except 'maybe'; they have very slim weight other than as contras to the evidentiary fact of the two cartouches writ together touching on one of the columns in the tomb of AIII's courtier, and separately on other columns in the same room, as well as the logic of togetherness that it presents on its face.  Is this ironclad evidence of co-regency: no, but it's stronger than the sand of doubts he posits, as attractive as they may seem as debunking tools.  And I don't think we must have unquestionable, ironclad, decisive evidence to engage with the notion of a co-regency, but rather a preponderance thereof, unless he manages to thoroughly debunk it.

n the third paragraph, he dismisses the cumulative weight of evidences and the logic of its support of a, somewhat unique, co-regency in a Dynasty which had already previously favored the institution.  His preference for a certain representation of the two monarchs together, as with Hatshepsut/TIII, is certainly agreeable if we had our druthers, but those many earlier Thutmosid monuments have survived to see and analyze, whereas most Atenist monuments have not, and even their many inscribed blocks are not entire.  I would also note that, as far as we can tell, although the Atenist monuments and AIV's palace at Thebes were built and presented as by AIV and Nefertiti, whereas seemingly those Atenist monuments/temple at Aten City were built by AIII, and Tiye, this I think is where we may have weighty doubts as to whether this lack of extant, dual-kingship inscriptions signifies a solitary reign, since we simply do not know (from what we have) how such a co-regency would have been configured in that, Atenist, era, so different from the milieu and zeitgeist of the Hatshepsut/TIII era, and how it would or could have been represented.  So it seems to me we may exercise our own doubt that, such as we have, their lack of inscriptional dual-reference to kingship negates the co-regency.

Perhaps I argue too strongly.  I do think highly of Dodson, just disagree with him here.  Unless we're supposed to think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, to which Kitchen would strongly protest.

Edited by Wistman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 5:13 PM, docyabut2 said:

sorry to think  Akhenaten was Moses 

Freud proposed that Moses had been a priest of Akhenaten who fled Egypt after the pharaoh's death and perpetuated monotheism through a different religion, and that he was murdered by his followers, who then via reaction formation revered him and became irrevocably committed to the monotheistic idea he represented.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_and_Monotheism#:~:text=Freud proposed that Moses had,the monotheistic idea he represented.

Hi Docy

if his mummy is in Egypt then it’s not likely that he is Moses who was said to have died near but not in the land of milk and honey.

Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah, across from Jericho. There the LORD showed him the whole land--from Gilead to Dan,
2 
all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, [1]
3 
the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar.
4 
Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, `I will give it to your descendants.' I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it."
5 
And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said.
6 
He buried him [2] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
7 
Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.
8 
The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.
9 
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit [3] of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.
10 
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
11 
who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt--to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land.
12 
For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.  
  1. [2] That is, the Mediterranean
  2. [6] Or He was buried
  3. [9] Or Spirit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Docy

if his mummy is in Egypt then it’s not likely that he is Moses who was said to have died near but not in the land of milk and honey.

Then Moses climbed Mount Nebo from the plains of Moab to the top of Pisgah, across from Jericho. There the LORD showed him the whole land--from Gilead to Dan,
2 
all of Naphtali, the territory of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the western sea, [1]
3 
the Negev and the whole region from the Valley of Jericho, the City of Palms, as far as Zoar.
4 
Then the LORD said to him, "This is the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob when I said, `I will give it to your descendants.' I have let you see it with your eyes, but you will not cross over into it."
5 
And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had said.
6 
He buried him [2] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.
7 
Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.
8 
The Israelites grieved for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days, until the time of weeping and mourning was over.
9 
Now Joshua son of Nun was filled with the spirit [3] of wisdom because Moses had laid his hands on him. So the Israelites listened to him and did what the LORD had commanded Moses.
10 
Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,
11 
who did all those miraculous signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt--to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land.
12 
For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel.  
  1. [2] That is, the Mediterranean
  2. [6] Or He was buried
  3. [9] Or Spirit

I think it worth pointing out, even though it is the bleedin' obvious, that all these territories that the Hebrew's god is giving them were, at the time of Akhenaten, and had been for a long time before him and would be for a long time after him, territories that were part of the Egytpian Empire. However, by the first appearance of the Hebrews in the historical record, they were not, and there was certainly no exodus of them from Egypt in the first millenium, but there was from Babylon.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wistman said:

Could you kindly iterate the reasons you have for a shorter co-regency than eight years? 

As to the Dodson reference, yes he indicates that evidences of a AIII/AIV co-regency as we have them aren't ironclad (what is in this era), I think his doubts and alternates wrt the Huy tomb are a bit specious, with all due respect.  With the destruction of public and religious architecture and inscriptions from the period, tomb references are a necessary source we can acknowledge as prima facie, knowing the limits of information they can confer, temporal and self-laudatory, on the questions surrounding such things as the advent and eclipse of kingship.  It is curious that here we have the two kings' cartouches shown immediately together (and the co-regency theory had been around for decades before this, with some justifications as noted earlier) in the tomb of a courtier from AIII's reign, which is exactly that which was sought, and Dodson offers his reasons to deny it thus:

His assumptions in the first two paragraphs may be true or not, but he doesn't present any information to support them either, except 'maybe'; they have very slim weight other than as contras to the evidentiary fact of the two cartouches writ together touching on one of the columns in the tomb of AIII's courtier, and separately on other columns in the same room, as well as the logic of togetherness that it presents on its face.  Is this ironclad evidence of co-regency: no, but it's stronger than the sand of doubts he posits, as attractive as they may seem as debunking tools.  And I don't think we must have unquestionable, ironclad, decisive evidence to engage with the notion of a co-regency, but rather a preponderance thereof, unless he manages to thoroughly debunk it.

n the third paragraph, he dismisses the cumulative weight of evidences and the logic of its support of a, somewhat unique, co-regency in a Dynasty which had already previously favored the institution.  His preference for a certain representation of the two monarchs together, as with Hatshepsut/TIII, is certainly agreeable if we had our druthers, but those many earlier Thutmosid monuments have survived to see and analyze, whereas most Atenist monuments have not, and even their many inscribed blocks are not entire.  I would also note that, as far as we can tell, although the Atenist monuments and AIV's palace at Thebes were built and presented as by AIV and Nefertiti, whereas seemingly those Atenist monuments/temple at Aten City were built by AIII, and Tiye, this I think is where we may have weighty doubts as to whether this lack of extant, dual-kingship inscriptions signifies a solitary reign, since we simply do not know (from what we have) how such a co-regency would have been configured in that, Atenist, era, so different from the milieu and zeitgeist of the Hatshepsut/TIII era, and how it would or could have been represented.  So it seems to me we may exercise our own doubt that, such as we have, their lack of inscriptional dual-reference to kingship negates the co-regency.

Perhaps I argue too strongly.  I do think highly of Dodson, just disagree with him here.  Unless we're supposed to think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, to which Kitchen would strongly protest.

I honestly think that the only reason we see the cartouches in the tomb of Amunhotep-Huy is that he lived to serve two kings, not that these two kings reigned at the same time.

So, I'll put this forward as a reason I think that there was no co-regency. There is, as far as I can find, only one mention of Amunhotep III on a monument made by Akhenaten, which seems odd if they ruled together for eight years, or even one year. That one mention of Amunhotep III is on the year 5 boundary stelae, and it's context is important. Akhenaten never acknowledges any father except the Aten, odd in itself if they shared the throne. Amunhotep III had become, among various gods such as Khonsu, Ra-Horakhty, an aspect of the sungod and part of the early name of the Aten. Amunhotep III was also the "Dazzling Aten". He is essentially that which Akhenaten calls his father, but the context in which Akhenaten calls the Aten his father is that of a god and not co-ruler with a living man, and may well be a reason why he gives the Aten a double cartouche as if he were a living king. What I mean is that he is not refering to two personalities, but one only, and that is uniquivocally a god and not a lving man, though part of this god had been. A point here is that while we know that in "Atenism" the ba of deceased commoners rests in their tomb at night and emerge to flock at the nearest Aten temple during the day to receive offerings, or rather I think to help themselves to the offerings laid out for the Aten. Crucially, there is zero mention of an afterlife for a king, and I think it was because as far as Akhenaten was concerned, his bodily father was still alive, but as the Aten. I also believe that the hacking out of the Amun element of Amunhotep's name was not seen as an insult as he was no longer tied in any form to Amun, in fact Amunhotep III is, in his son's eyes, perhaps being "freed" from the influence of Amun.

Back to the year five boundary stelae. There are multiple references to Akhenaten's father being the Aten with no mention bar one of Amunhotep III, and he is refered to by his prenomen only, Nebmaatre. The context is in the lines of text refering to "bad things", and I'll quote the entire section for clarity in what I propose is evidence that there was no co-regency. Translation by Murnane.

Quote

Now as my Father, The Aten, lives, as for the [...] in 'Horizon of the Orb', it was worse than those which I heard in regnal year 4; it was worse than [those] which heard in regnal year 3; it was worse than those which I heard in regnal year 2; it was worse than those which I heard in regnal year 1. It was worse than those which Nebmaatre heard. It was worse than those which [... heard]. It was worse than those which Menkheperre heard. It was worse than those which any of the kings who had ever assumed the White Crown heard.

What I'll draw attention to is the sequence which Akhenaten uses. He has heard "bad things" in year 4, 3, 2 and 1,of his reign and then he states that they were worse than what Amunhotep III had heard. If they had ruled together, and particularly if they had ruled for eight years, the "bad things" in Akhenaten's years 1 to 4 would apply to Amunhotep III as well, but they don't, his "bad things" are clearly for his reign alone, a reign before Akhenaten, the same as there were "bad things" in the reign of Thutmose III.

This is not conclusive evidence of course, but I do think that some attention needs paying to the lack of any mention, as far as I see, and could of course be corrected, of any father by Akhenaten except the Aten, and the context in which his bodily father is mentioned, is as a king from the past.

To the best of my knowledge, this line of reasoning, specifically the year five boundary stelae, has not been put forward before, at least not in the major works on Amarna from the last several decades which I have read.

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify the point about the Aten being a "king", I'll use the quote from Dodson:

Quote

Since the only fully attested New Kingdom co-regency of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III produced numerous images of the two kings acting together, the lack of any such images of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, further suggests to the present writer that, attractive as the co-regency might appear (writing as one who once enthusiastically embraced it!), it did not in fact occur.

I would say that, as indicated in my previous post, we do in fact have numerous examples of Akhenaten "acting with a co-ruler", it's just that the other "king" is a composite of the Aten and his dead father. I say dead father because I do not think that a living Amunhotep III, no matter what god or gods he has declared himself to be, was actually seen as The Aten. He was some fat middle aged guy with bad teeth, hardly "dazzling", and far less than "dazzling when he opened his mouth. Amunhotep III, the "British king". However, when dead, he can be anything that Akhenaten wants him to be.

On the Meidum temple graffito saying that Amuhotep III has "causing the male to sit down upon the seat of his father, establishing his inheritance in the land", which I have to say does look like an heir has been appointed, though not definitively a co-ruler. Akhenaten on the year 5 boundary stelae uses the words that he is on the seat of his father, The Aten. If he had been appointed co-ruler five years earlier in Amunhotep's year 30, I'm wondering why he would then have to state this again, and in reference to the Aten and not Amunhotep III. I can see a case could be made that Amunhotep III had died in Akhenaten's year 5, and straight away underwent the apotheosis to become the Aten, then that year five would need to be Amunhotep IIIs year 38, and we now get stuck in the tar.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some strange stuff about the mummy of Amunhotep III.

Because the type of mummification was like that of the 21th Dynasty and not the 18th, a question mark has always hung over the identity of this mummy, though the DNA has finally put this speculation in it's coffin. However, this unusual mummification still needs explaining, and in the article I link to they mention comments by Joann Fletcher. Scroll down about half way to reach the part about Amunhotep III.

Quote

Fletcher has discussed the new mummification techniques of the Amarna time, describing the special features of Amenhotep III as part of his religious motivation to declare himself as a living God and claiming that his gold-covered body once looked like a shiny golden statue of the sun-god, symbolizing the king's solar powers in afterlife. The style of mummification fits in with the emerging Amarna era (Ikram and Dodson, 1998; Fletcher, 2004). The religious motivation would explain why the new technique was abandoned together with the Atonism. This statue-like appearance fits and the putative use of liquid natron only fits to the time of Amenhotep III

That the flesh has gone from his face is explained by saying that G.E. Smith thought it was because the mummy had been left exposed by robbers. This is possible, but he just happens to be the only king whose face has gone. Thutmose III was hacked to pieces by robbers, but his face is still presentable. So, going back to Fletcher, and an implication that Amunhotep III was subjected to not so much mummification as taxidermy, and had been made to look like a golden statue, I wonder if the flesh from his face was gone not so much due to robbers, but that it had in fact been left exposed to an extent, perhaps a gold mask had been placed over his face, that had been preserved, but not wrapped in order to maintain life like dimensions. This makes me wonder if Amunhotep III had been buried in the normal way, but perhaps may have been "on show" in some form in some locality, as a "golden 'living' Aten", something like the ka statues, but before he had been eventually laid to rest his face had badly deteriorated.

I have no idea if there is anything in this, probably not, but how else is the unusual state of his mummy to be explained. It paints quite a garish picture though of the dead king "stuffed" and put on show as if he were still alive. Akhenaten behaving like Norman Bates ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a few items from a list of some jar dockets from Amarna as noted by Murnane in his "Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt", and from pages 95 and 96.

[Regnal year] 17, Wine [of] the house of the King's Wife, may she live. [of] the southern oasis...

I wonder who the king is and who the wife is. If Nefertiti is co-ruler in year 17 of Akhenaten, would she still be refered to as his wife, particularly when Meritaten is named as GRW. The "southern oasis" makes me think that this could be Tiye and the King Amunhotep III. This ties in with the jar docket with no names that has year 17 and year 1, and is held up as the "proof" of 17 years for Akhenaten.

[Regnal year] 10: wine of the estate of Nebmaatre-in-the-bark [of the] western [river]. The chief [vintner...].

This clearly indicates that wine over thirty years old, or at least the docket of, had been transported to Amarna.

Regnal year 17: wine of the estate of Nebmaatre.... The chief of the basin [...]nakkht.

Uniquivocal proof that wine from Amunhotep III's year 17 was at Amarna.

And, from Ankhenaten's tomb, limestone bowls that had belonged to Khafre and Thutmose III. This just goes to show that objects could remain within the royal household for a very long time. A bowl of Thutmose III is not so surprising, but a bowl of Khafre is mind boggling as it has survived outside the environment of a tomb for some 1,200 years, 14 dynasty's and two intermediate periods, or, maybe it came from his pyramid if an exercise in "rescuing" kings, as happened in the 21st Dynasty, occured at some point in those intervening 1,200 years. I've half heartedly proposed such an operation before, without a shred of evidence of course, but it could explain the existance of this bowl, and the mystery of the missing pre New Kingdom mummies of kings.

 

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.